Tebbit's Law

Scan page 7

Thatcher: her strategy of confrontation hinges on cowardice of TUC leaders Most of Tebbit's union law becomes operative this week. But the TUC's plans with trade unionists victimised under the law are hedged about with ifs and buts. John Mellroy reports.

THIS WEEK nearly all the clauses of the Tebbit law, which received the Royal Assent in October, become operative.

The big exception is the provision which requires a yes vote of 85% of the workforce before the law recognises a closed shop. This will become law in two years' time.

Ostensibly the delay is to allow time for employers to prepare for ballots. In reality this is another example of the flexible tactics which the Tories have used to introduce a sophisticated and detailed edifíce of iaoour law in a fragmented fashion, testing out union resistance at every stage.

The Tory strategy for a further five years involves the abolition of wages councils, the imposition of compulsory secret ballots, and a restructuring of the political relations between the unions and the Labour Party. By the 1990s the "niang! laral winhto and umons iegal iguts anu obligations, certainly in the arena of industrial action, will be worse than tnose prevailing a century before.

The TUC is not unaware of this. Len Murray has deseribed the Tories' present legal offensive as "the greatest threat facing trade unions this century". The TUC correctly grasp the objectives of the Tebbit law. "Its real purposes are to make it harder for working people to defend their living standards and their jobs and to undermine the bargaining strength of trade unions and the Movement's ability to promote alternative policies They also understand the threat posed for the instituconal interests or one union leaderships by the breaking of closed shops - hence loss of membership, hence loss of finances — and by the fact that as from this week legal actions can be brought directly against union funds. JOHN HARRIS Declaring their total opposition to Tebbit and the necessity to fight if in a thousand speeches, the General Council have, since the Special Conference of Executives of Affiliated Unions held at Wembley in April, developed what they describe as 'an effective plan of campaign aimed at neutering the aims of the proposed legislation'.

Yet those who are serivusiy committed to the neutering of Tebbit must see the General Council's judgement as dangerously self-congratulatory and complacent.

In reality the plan failed to stop Tebbit reaching the statute book. It will almost certainly fail to stop Tebbit when it is used.

Deficient

The TUC strategy is deficient on many counts. For example, withdrawal of TUC representatives from industrial tribunals hearing closed shop cases is a pin prick compared with the impact a TUC withdrawal from all tripartite machinery would have.

However, the core of the TUC's plan to stop Tebbit is contained in clause 5 of the 8 points adopted at Wembley. This states:

'where the General Council receive a request to assist a union faced by or experiencing • legal action by an employer and are satisfied that assistance from the movement is justified, they are empowered:

(i) 'To co-ordinate action by other affiliated unions in support of the union in difficulties including, if necessary, calling for industrial action against the employer concered or more widely, (ii) To provide financial assistance to a union which experiences severe financial problems as a result of damaging actions'.

The General Council will only think about acting where there is a request from an affiliate. This is no small point.

You will recall that no such request was forthcoming from the EETPU during the summer when legal action was taken against Sean Geraghty, and this might be true of other unions in similar circumstances if Tebbit is usea.

Even if a request is made assistance must be 'necessary and justified' if the TUC is to take action.

Now, surely this is ridiculous. Surely the whole point about a united TUC campaign against Tebbit is that the law is inherently anti-union and its use against trade unionists illegitimate. If it is used against a union assistance must be 'necessary and justified' To put it another way: are there circumstances in which the General Council think that the use of Tebbit is jusurea anu circumstances in which they feel that victims should be left to the tender mercies of the judges? If so, hadn't they better spell these circumstances out in a detailed way now?

Our suspicions are increased when we look at the explanatory rubric to point 5, ...while there is a consequent need for flexibility of tactics the General Council will stand ready where they are satisfied that it is warranted to organise support...' Again, if Tebbit is used against stewards or unions defending closed shop, pieketing other workplaces, blacking goods in solidarity or taking any of the measures Tebbit is attempting to outlaw, how is it possible that support would not be warranted?

Not automatic The TUL adas: "I'nat cannot mean nor would affiliated unions expect (!!) that a union or a group of its, members encountering legal difficulties should automatically receive support from the TUC and other unions irrespective of their circumstances They (the General Council) would need to be satisfied that the union was justified in the action it was taking and would also expect the "nion to take full account of the views they might express about the form and continuation of the action which had given rise to the legal case. LOGUILANU. 'The General Council would beed to be assured of the response from other # stil parts of the union seeking support to the group of members whose action had given rise to the legal case as it is unreasonable for a union if difficulties to seek TUC help ... unless it has mobilised its own members and resources and has the support of other unions in the workplace affected.' Loopholes The TUC document is drafted as if the main aim of the game is not to give confidence to the front line troops who will have to break Tebbit's law, nor to assure them that if they defend their organisations these organisations will back them to the hilt, but rather to provide a series of carefully drafted loopholes to protect the General Council.

W.C. Fields would have had no problems here. The General Council do not need to do anything until they are assured that all the other members of a far-flung disparate organisation like the TGWU are already taking action to support say a group of TGWU car workers.

The General Council do not need to give support until they are assured that all other unions in that workplace, AUEW, APEX, EETPU, ASTMS, etc, etc, are taking action.

This is a iustification for A LAIN AN inertia by the people who should themselves be doing this very job of mobilising other trade unionists.

out that before any suppor is forthcoming TUC advice on the form and continu ation of the action' must b taken.

'Yes,' we can envisage Len Murray saying, 'youx strike is official and to win it you need to picket other workplaces which Tebbit outlaws. But we don't want a national stoppage over 1,000 workers, do we? Get that picketing called off.

'You can continue the strike ... even though it will be totally ineffective!' 'Yes,' we can hear Moss Evans argue, 'your black. ing is justifiable to help another group of workers. But if you continue it will cost us thousands and we don't want that, do we? good lads! Who here's Call it off now workers... they'll get by!' Anybody who believes that this is just sectarian carping about a document which is just carefully drafted to take care of future possibilities should consider the practice of the TUC in the cases of ASLEF and of Sean Geraghty.

In the first case a relatively small group of workers fighting for the interest of all trade unionists were not simply deserted by the General Council. They were ordered back to work.

In the second case - all too typical of those likely to occur under Tebbit? the TUC averted its gaze and did absolutely nothing while a dedicated trade unionist was hauled before the courts for showing solidarity with the TUC-led NHS dispute and for carrying out the policy of his union and the TUC in fighting Tory laws.

This practice is a policy for disaster. It can have a rolling effect of demoralisation.

If trade unionists feel they will get no support from their union they will not defend the closed shop, picket or black when they are told it is against the law. If unions feel that they True they wil becoe even more passive.

If this happens, if th practice adopter over ASLEF and Geraghty continues, then Tebbit will succeed - and transform the tactics, strategy, and ITACE HORONS programme now consecrates in policy the practice of the General Council ove ASLEF and Geraghty. It sançtifies the stunted conceptions of solidarity whicl re losing more and mor disputes for trade unionists in the 1980's.

But petlas most importantly this programme is intendec centralise staleg. in the hands of General Counci The actual struggles gains the Industrial elations Act, helped a they were by TUC opposiion, were initiated by ti ni and file over Pento ville and by the AUEW over Goad and Con Mech.

In a changed environ. ment the rank and file look more to their unions anc individual unions look more to the TUC..

With a fighting leader. ship this would be a healthy tendency. This programme is intended to reinforce this tendency and give the General Council control o! any struggle from the outset. But, of course, we do not _have a fighting leadership.

Any real support by the TUC to a union or grour of workers attacked by Tebbit would ultimalely require escalation into ¿ General Strike. The TUC knowing the determinatior of the Thatcher govern ment, is not prepared tr risk its present positions weakened as they are, ir a struggle which like al struggles involves ar element of risk.

They remember wit anxiety the upheavals o 1972-4. They want peace Indeed their main ideo logical attack on Tebbit i that it disrupts the pros pects of peace.

"They (the government have refused to listen whe we have tried to impress o them that the intrusion o more and more restrictiv legislation into industria relations weakens volun tary efforts to promot positive improvements.' As an example of how t effectively control worker and weaken stiikes the cite their own notoriou TUC Guides of Februar 1979.

Relying on pacifism dreaming of futur Labour government, TUI control is likely to impriso struggles against Tebbi within the political limi tations of the Genera Council paralysing thei potential. If that potentia is to be realised, then w have to argue that th present TUC programme i as full of holes as HM Sheffield.

It will discourage man from taking on Tebbit.

We have to argue that w need no 'justifications used against any union o group of workers then yes TUC support should b automatic.

Such a policy, if strongl and clearly circulatec would fire the troops and discouraf the enemy. It would allo the movement to start pre paring right now for th day when Tebbit is used.

We need to campaig for this policy within th unions but we also need t start campaigning now f immediate action by th rank and file and individur unions if Tebbit is use We cannot wait for th TUC.

The ASLEF and Geragt ty cases reaffirmed onc more that the only time th General Council will act i when they are forced to b intense and widesprea pressure of the rank an file. That is what can be: the Tories.

----- pull-quotes -----

phrase is that which poikes But perhaps the key

bargaining power of th trade union anti-Tebbit

'assurances', "special cir cumstances'. if Tebbit i